Print this page Email this page
Users Online: 182
Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 


 
 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2015  |  Volume : 5  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 101-105

Feasibility of nonoperative management of grade III and IV splenic injury in hemodynamically stable patients in limited ICU settings: A prospective study


1 Department of Surgery, Government Medical College, Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir, India
2 Department of Radiodiagonosis, Government Medical College, Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir, India
3 Department of Pharmacology, Government Medical College, Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir, India
4 Postgraduate Student, BS, University of Kashmir, Kashmir, Jammu and Kashmir, India

Date of Web Publication16-Jun-2015

Correspondence Address:
Dr. S A Mir
Department of Surgery, Government Medical College, Srinagar - 190 001, Jammu and Kashmir
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/2278-9596.153652

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 

Background: The management of splenic injuries has evolved over the years. The objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of nonoperative management (NOM) of higher grades (grade III and IV) of splenic trauma in limited intensive care unit (ICU) settings.
Patients and Methods: This prospective study was carried out in the Department of Surgery Government Medical College, Srinagar over a period of 1.5 year from January 2012 to June 2013. The study included 50 hemodynamically stable patients with computed tomography (CT) documented grade III or IV splenic trauma (30 patients with grade III and 20 patients with grade IV). Vigorous monitoring was done in general surgical ward setup during first 2-3 days of trauma consisting of hourly monitoring by the resident doctor on the 1 st day and 3-hourly monitoring thereafter.
Results: Most common mode of trauma was road traffic accident (20, 40%) followed by fall from height (15, 30%), human violence (10, 20%), and others including animal assault (5, 10%). Ninety-four percent of our patients were managed nonoperatively without any mortality. Fourteen patients from group A (grade III) and 17 patientsfrom group B (grade IV) required blood transfusions. Ninety-three percent of the patients from group A and 45% of patients from group B were managed in the ward setting without any need for ICU setup. Children with grade III laceration showed complete resolution on CT after an average of 5.2 months and those with grade IV laceration on CT after an average of 9.3 months.
Conclusion: NOM of higher grades of splenic trauma appears to be feasible in centers with limited ICU facilities, though it demands strict and continuous monitoring during initial 2-3 days.

Keywords: Blunt abdominal trauma, diagnostic imaging, ICU limited settings, nonoperativemanagement, resuscitation, splenic trauma


How to cite this article:
Wani M, Mir S A, Watali Y Z, Bhat J A, Bhat M Y, Moheen H A. Feasibility of nonoperative management of grade III and IV splenic injury in hemodynamically stable patients in limited ICU settings: A prospective study. Arch Int Surg 2015;5:101-5

How to cite this URL:
Wani M, Mir S A, Watali Y Z, Bhat J A, Bhat M Y, Moheen H A. Feasibility of nonoperative management of grade III and IV splenic injury in hemodynamically stable patients in limited ICU settings: A prospective study. Arch Int Surg [serial online] 2015 [cited 2020 Oct 22];5:101-5. Available from: https://www.archintsurg.org/text.asp?2015/5/2/101/153652


  Introduction Top


The management of splenic injuries has evolved since the 1940s when Wansborough, from the hospital for sick children in Toronto, reviewed the necropsy of a child with a suspected previous splenic injury, and noted a well-healed complete transection of the spleen into two segments on two separate pedicles. [1] He suggested that splenectomy was not always necessary for hemodynamically stable patients with splenic injuries. [2] The protocol of nonoperative management (NOM) in adults was broken after the observation of the management of spleen trauma in children. [3],[4] Billroth suggested over 100 years ago that the injured spleen has the ability of self-healing. [5] When it comes to visceral injuries following abdominal trauma, there is nothing as radical as the NOM of hepatic and splenic injuries. [6] In 1882, Gross indicated NOM for splenic injuries and recommends bed rest and mild diet for minor injuries and lead acetate, ergot, and opium for severe lesions; surgery will be performed only if necessary. [7] The treatment for blunt abdominal trauma has significantly changed thanks to new diagnostic methods and the accurate assessment of organ damage. Traditionally splenectomy was done in almost all patients with splenic trauma. Splenectomy is associated with many complications. Many clinical studies indicated that splenectomy increases risk of infection susceptibility with its most deadly manifestation, overwhelming post splenectomy infection (OPSI), which appears in 0.5% of trauma patients and in over 20% of elective splenectomies for hematologic disorders. [8] OPSI is most frequent during the first 2 years of asplenia, but there is a permanent risk of infection with a mortality of over 80%. It is currently considered that traumatic splenic injury is no longer an absolute indication for splenectomy, thus a proper review of indications for emergency surgery in traumatic hemoperitoneum is needed. It has proven to have advantages, such as low hospital costs, avoidance of nontherapeutic laparotomies, low rates of intra-abdominal complications, low rate of blood transfusions, and low mortality rate. NOM is currently not recommended in institutions other than those with full capabilities, including multislice computed tomography (CT) scan, trauma intensive care unit (TICU) staff, and in-house surgery team. [3] NOM is not 100% safe and is deemed to fail in 2-33% of cases. [9],[10],[11] The presence of multiple splenic lesions, large amount of free fluid, age greater than 55 years, and high injury severity score (ISS) are important risk factors associated with treatment failure. [9],[11],[12] NOM has emerged as treatment of choice for American Association for the Surgery of Trauma-Organ Injury Scale (AAST-OIS) grade I, II and III, while grade IV remains the point of discussion yet. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the feasibility of NOM for grade III and IV splenic trauma in a tertiary care hospital of northern India with limited ICU facility. The only absolute indication for emergency laparotomy is hemodynamic instability. [13]


  Patients and Methods Top


This prospective study was carried out in the Department of Surgery, Government Medical College, Srinagar over a period of 1.5 year from January 2012 to June 2013. Shri Maharaja Hari Singh (SMHS) Hospital is an associated hospital of Government Medical College (GMC), Srinagar. It is an 800-bedded hospital with a limited ICU facility. Its ICU has a capacity of seven beds. This ICU is meant not only for the SMHS Hospital but also other associated hospitals of GMC Srinagar and other peripheral hospitals of Kashmir valley. CT angiography is available in SMHS Hospital, although none of our patients had splenic blush on contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT). About 700 patients of blunt abdominal trauma are admitted to the surgical causality department of SMHS Hospital, Srinagar annually.

The study included 50 hemodynamically stable patients with CT documented grade III or IV splenic trauma- (30 patients with grade III and 20 patients with grade IV). Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) protocol was routinely applied. Grade I and II splenic injuries are usually managed nonoperatively. Protocol of nonoperative treatment in AAST-OIS [14] grade IV blunt splenic trauma was followed.

Inclusion criteria include patients with splenic injury from blunt abdominal trauma who had no signs of peritonitis and were hemodynamically stable defined as systolic blood pressure >90 mmHg and initial hemoglobin level >8 g/dL after initial resuscitation with maximum 2 units of red blood cells. Patients whose CT revealed absence of associated injuries to hollow viscera or pneumoperitoneum and absence of splenic contrast blush were also included.

NOM protocol: Monitoring

  1. Hemoglobin or hematocrit measurement every 6 h in the first 24 h or more frequently in the case of clinical deterioration.
  2. Arterial blood gas measurements every 12 h in the first 24 h or more frequently in the case of clinical deterioration.
  3. ICU admission.


NOM failure was defined by the need for surgical intervention due to continuous hemodynamic instability, progressive fall of hemoglobin or hematocrit levels, with recurrent blood transfusion or clinical signs of peritonitis.

Above protocol was followed in our study to a great extent except for the routine ICU admission. Vigorous monitoring was done in general surgical ward setup during first 2-3 days of trauma consisting of hourly monitoring by the resident doctor on the 1 st day and 3-hourly monitoring thereafter. Monitoring parameters included pulse, respiratory rate, blood pressure, temperature, input, and output. Patients were discharged on day 5 th -7 th . Follow-up was scheduled at 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months, and so on.

Indications for operative management in a stable splenic trauma patient:

  1. Other clear indications for exploratory laprotomy.
  2. Associated health conditions that carry an increased risk of bleeding (coagulopathy, hepatic failure, use of anticoagulants, specific coagulation factor deficiency).
  3. Contrast extravasation on CT.
  4. Non availability of the operating surgeon round the clock (in case need arises).



  Results Top


The study included 50 patients of splenic trauma [Figure 1] with initial hemodynamic stability and CT scan documented grade III (group A) or IV (group B) splenic trauma (30 patients with grade III and 20 patients with grade IV ) as shown in [Table 1]. Most common mode of trauma was road traffic accident (20, 40%) followed by fall from height (15, 30%), human violence (10, 20%), and others including animal assault (5,10%). As for as demographic distribution is concerned, 30 (60%) patients were from urban areas and 20 (40%) from rural areas. Most of our patients (47,94%) were managed nonoperatively. Fourteen patients from group A (Grade III) and 17 patients from group B (Grade IV) required blood transfusions. The amount of blood transfused ranged from 0 to 3 units. Twenty-eight (93.3%) patients from group A and nine (45%) patients from group B were managed in the ward setting without any need for ICU setup. The AAST grades for splenic trauma are given in [Table 1].
Figure 1: Computed tomography (CT) showing splenic trauma

Click here to view
Table 1: American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) grades for splenic trauma[15]


Click here to view


The sex and age distribution of patients and various parameters are given in [Table 2] and [Table 3], respectively. The age of the patients ranged from 13 to 57 years. The NOM failed in three patients from group B and were operated. The indication for terminating NOM was worsening of abdominal pain and hypovolemic shock in two patients and clinical signs of peritonitis in one patient.
Table 2: Age and sex distribution


Click here to view
Table 3: Clinical parameters in patients with splenic injury


Click here to view



  Discussion Top

"NOM for blunt splenic injuries replaces splenorrhaphy which was the usual method for preserving the spleen". [15],[16] The incidence of NOM has increased from 59% (1991) to 75% (1994) and that of splenectomy has decreased from 35% (1991) to 24% (1994). [17] The incidence of splenorrhaphy has significantly dropped from 6 to 1%. [17] Even 2 units of transfused blood during the first 48 h (in order to maintain a hemoglobin level above 8 g/dl) is compatible with a successful NOM. [5],[8] Similar results were obtained in our study (14 cases in group A and 17 cases in group B required blood transfusions). Accelerated splenic healing that grants a successful NOM in children and young adults is explained by the early accumulation of myofibroblasts at the lesion site. Benya et al., [18] conducted a study that included children with grade I-II splenic injuries with complete resolution on CT scans after 4 months from the initial injury; for severe lesions the healing time is extended to over 6 months for grade III and over 11 months for grade IV injuries. In our study, children with grade III laceration showed complete resolution on CT after an average of 5.2 months and those with grade IV laceration on CT after an average of 9.3 months. Archer's results indicated that NOM in patients with altered mental status is safe in a strictly monitored environment as confirmed by the rate of success of NOM in patients with GCS <13 (93%). [17] Likewise, Cocanour [19] considers that brain injuries are not a contraindication for NOM. In a setup with limited ICU facilities like ours, the threshold for operative management should be low in patients of splenic trauma associated with brain injuries. Sartorelli et al.'s, study [20] about multiple intra-abdominal parenchymal injuries established a rate of success for NOM of 94.1%, therefore confirming its safety.

Recent protocols for NOM are applicable in all multiple trauma patients with splenic injuries (but without hemorrhage), requiring more than 4 units of transfused units (usually following pelvic fractures) only in trauma centers. [17] It is important to remember that prolonged bleeding may cause clotting disturbances, affecting the overall outcome of NOM, thus emphasizing the importance of an accurate clinical assessment. [17] Multiple transfusions are actually the hallmark of failed NOM. [17]

Patients with a prolonged prothrombin time (PT) should not be approached by NOM in case of splenic trauma even if cirrhosis is not present. [21] Unsuccessful NOM rate ranges between 2 and 31%. [16],[22] In our study, unsuccessful NOM rate was 3(6%) patients. The indication for terminating NOM was worsening of abdominal pain and hypovolemic shock in two patients and clinical signs of peritonitis in one patient. Factors like proper selection of patients, cooperation of patients (limitation of activity), and aggressive monitoring contributed to good success rate in our study.


  Conclusion Top


NOM of higher grades of splenic trauma (grade III and IV) appears to be feasible even in centers with limited ICU facilities, though it demands strict and continuous monitoring. Most of our patients were managed well in the ward setup without any mortality. NOM of splenic trauma has proven to have advantages, such as low hospital costs, avoidance of nontherapeutic laparotomies, low rates of intra-abdominal complications, low rate of blood transfusions, and low mortality rate. Most of our patients were managed well in the ward setup without any mortality. Hence, we recommend conservative management (NOM) in grade III/IV splenic trauma in ICU limited settings, though it needs frequent monitoring during initial 2-3 days.

 
  References Top

1.
Douglas GJ, Simpson JS. The conservative management of splenic trauma. J Pediatr Surg 1971;6:565-70.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Pearl RH, Wesson DE, Spence LJ, Filler RM, Ein SH, Shandling B, et al. Splenic injury: A 5-year update with improved results and changing criteria for conservative management. J Pediatr Surg 1989;24:428-31.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Stassen NA, Bhullar I, Cheng JD, Crandall ML, Friese RS, Guillamondegui OD, et al. Selective nonoperative management of blunt splenic injury: An Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma practice management guideline. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2012;73:S294-300.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Starling SV, Rodrigues JM, Reis MC. Trauma contuso do baço: Quando operar? In: Fraga GP, Sevá-Pereira G, Lopes LR. Atualidades em Clínica Cirúrgica - Intergastro e Trauma 2011. São Paulo: Editora Atheneu; 2011. p. 29-51.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Lucas CE. Splenic Trauma-Choice of Management. Ann Surg 1991;213:98-112.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Hoyt DB. Symposium on nonoperative management of liver and spleen trauma: Introduction. World J Surg 2001;25:1388.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
McClusky III DA, Skandalakis LJ, Colborn GL, Skandalakis JE. Surgical history. Tribute to a triad: History of splenic anatomy, physiology, and surgery-Part 2. World J Surg 1999;23:514-26.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Uranüs S, Pfeifer J. Nonoperative management of blunt splenic injury. World J Surg 2001;25:1405-7.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Raza M, Abbas Y, Devi V, Prasad KV, Rizk KN, Nair PP. Non operative management of abdominal trauma: A 10 years review. World J Emerg Surg 2013;8:14.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Jeremitsky E, Smith RS, Ong AW. Starting the clock: Defining nonoperative management of blunt splenic injury by time. Am J Surg 2013;205:298-30.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Carvalho FH, Romeiro PC, Collaço IA, Baretta GA, Freitas AC, Matias JE. Prognostics factors related to non surgical treatment failure of splenic injuries in the abdominal blunt trauma. Rev Col Bras Cir 2009;36:123-30.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Olthof DC, Joosse P, Van der Vlies CH, de Haan RJ, Goslings JC. Prognostic factors for failure of nonoperative management in adults with blunt splenic injury: A systematic review. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2013;74:546-57.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Velmahos GC, Chan LS, Kamel E, Murray JA, Yassa N, Kahaku D, et al. Nonoperative management of splenic injuries: Have we gone too far? Arch Surg 2000;135:674-81.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Fernandes TM, Dorigatti AE, Pereira BM, Cruvinel Neto J, Zago TM, Fraga GP. Nonoperative management of splenic injury grade IV is safe using rigid protocol. Rev Col Bras Cir 2013;40:323-8.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Moore EE, Cogbill TH, Jurkovich GJ, Shackford SR, Malangoni MA, Champion HR. Organ injury scaling: Spleen and liver (1994 revision). J Trauma 1995;38:323-4.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Pachter HL, Guth AA, Hofstetter SR, Spencer FC. Changing patterns in the management of splenic trauma: The impact of nonoperative management. Ann Surg 1998; 227:708-17.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Beuran M, Gheju I, Venter MD, Marian RC, Smarandache R. Non-operative management of splenic trauma. J Med Life 2012;5:47-58.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Benya EC, Bulas DI, Eichelberger MR, Sivit CJ. Splenic injury from blunt abdominal trauma in children: Follow-up evaluation with CT. Radiology 1995;195:685-8.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Cocanour CS, Moore FA, Ware DN, Marvin RG, Clark M, Duke JH. Delayed complications of nonoperative management of blunt adult splenic trauma. Arch Surg 1998;133:619-25.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Sartorelli KH, Frumiento C, Rogers FB, Osler TM. Nonoperative management of hepatic, splenic, and renal injuries in adults with multiple injuries. J Trauma 2000;49:56-62.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Barone JE. Editorial comment. J Trauma 2003;54:1136.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Peitzman AB, Heil B, Rivera L, Federle MB, Harbrecht BG, Clancy KD, et al. Blunt splenic injury in adults: Multi-institutional study of the eastern association for the surgery of trauma. J Trauma 2000;49:177-89.  Back to cited text no. 22
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Patients and Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
References
Article Figures
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2083    
    Printed40    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded177    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal